Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Kerryn Offord
The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).

Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence?

You're not, in the UK. There's a general "duty of retreat" - if someone gets
in your face and shouts insults, you're expected to back off rather than hit
him, and if he pursues then his intentions are obviously hostile - but it's
accepted that once in your own home you've run out of places to retreat to,
and should not be forced to flee.

I gather that doesn't apply in some US states, which is interesting.

--
Paul J. Adam

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:
Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure the
other non gun crimes in the UK.

Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns.

Prevent, no. Seriously reduce the odds, yes. (And many of those 'guns' are
replicas, blank firers, air pistols or dodgy conversions - they all count as
"firearms" in the crime statistics. One guy tried to rob a post office using
two pieces of gas pipe taped together: that was a 'firearm crime')

It only
prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could get
shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or by
someone mcuh larger/stronger than you.

And being armed would change what, precisely, if you're outnumbered and
surprised?

Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's
never a good thing to shoot anyone.

No,I am NOT joking.
Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape than
shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber?

I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and to
prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not
generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers.

Why do you wish to protect criminals?

A few years ago, a Scotsman was working in Texas. He made the mistake of
knocking on someone's door to ask for directions: the homeowner shot the guy
several times through the door and killed him. Was he a "criminal"?

Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get shot in
the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every shot kills,so
shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and executioner".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

You fire a weapon in my direction, you are making a deliberate attempt to
kill me, and I *will* take it extremely personally. Firing at someone is
"deadly force" and there's no way to weasel around it.

Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to
take the life of another? Even if that guy is caught red handed
rifling through your smalls, it's indefensible.

If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible
felony",yes
it is legal to use lethal force.

I've been told with a straight face that it's fair and reasonable to shoot
and kill trespassers. Someone sets a foot on your lawn and you're allowed to
kill them. Same poster claimed that this was entirely right and reasonable.

And inside one's home,the "castle
doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good
purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them in
the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.)

See above for the inconsistency.

These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD
be.

True here too: just no need for lots of handguns. Someone breaks into your
house, you're allowed to hurt them until they leave, and if they try to come
back you can hurt them some more. Just make sure that most of the wounds are
in their front, not their back.

(And for the endless whines about Jill Dando - she was shot in the back of
the head on her doorstep, caught completely unawares. She could have had a
MAC-10 in each hand and it wouldn't have made the slightest difference)

--
Paul J. Adam

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:




Speaking as an ignorant grunt, does it not scare you ****less
that a 'citizen' is armed in the first place? It's hardly as if
he's fending away Indians from the homestead.

Yeah,like there aren't any criminals running loose preying on
ordinary decent citizens. (ODC's) A person was shot twice with a
small caliber gun in the building next to mine,in my apartment
complex. I heard the gunshots,saw the crooks driving off,gave a
report to the police about it.There's a lot of people who
successfully defend themselves with
firearms
every year(in the US).

Even in the UK,Jill Dando,BBC commentator,was shot and killed on
the
London
street,in front of her home.George Harrsion was nearly knifed to
death in his home,even with high security.His wife was also
wounded by the burglar.

Do you expect a elderly lady to defend herself against
larger,stronger young thugs unarmed?
Do you believe that police can be everywhere,to protect
everyone,24/7/365? It's not so.

I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of
the two alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity
to fend off a burglar and there is no way the police can prevent
him from breaking and entering - which is a sorry state of affairs.
However, were that lady armed with a 9mm, any sensible burglar
would still go to her home taking a pistol with him.

If he believed that she owned a gun,perhaps he would.However,I have
read
of
many such attempts where the lady or old guy was still able to get to
their
gun and either run off the crook,hold them for police,wound them (and
they get caught seeking medical treatment),or kill the crook,even
after being shot themselves.Allowing citizens firearms to defend
themselves increases the risks for the criminals,often to the point
they pick some other crime to commit.And it's far better than just
hoping the criminal has good intentions towards you.

Which is the safer situation for
the lady, neither are pleasant, but I would argue the former.

Replying to Matt Gunsch, I looked into the details:

In the UK for the year 2001 - 2002, there were 23 firearm deaths.
In 2000 (not the same year, but close enough) 66% of the 15,517
murders in America were caused by firearms - that's about 10,000.
Even accounting for the relative population sizes of the two
countries, you're still several orders of magnitude out - and that
does not include the number of accidental deaths caused by firearms
in the same time period.

Yes,but you still ignore the other *non-gun* crime that people in the
UK must endure.For instance,your at-home burglaries are much higher
than in the US.Also,your gun-crime IS increasing.

Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure the
other non gun crimes in the UK.

Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns.It only
prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could get
shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or by
someone mcuh larger/stronger than you.


True, the law can never prevent the criminals from owning firearms, and in
recent years there's been a steady stream of weapons into the UK from the
Baltic States. However, a criminal in America is 99.9% likely to own a gun
and have it with him inside your house, in the UK this is just not the case.
The type of criminal who carries a gun in the UK is not petty enough to rob
your home, they'll be bigfish.

The driving factor for an American criminal to carry a gun is to protect
himself from your 9mm. Also those of the police. That puts you, your family,
and any bystanders in danger each time you take up your gun and fight the
good fight like a true American hero. The police have a right to carry guns,
as by your law, you do too. You are very obviously a conscientious gun user
and very capable with your weapon, yet not all citizens of your fair country
are that meticulous, and that's when they become too much of a danger for
society to accept.

Were a close friend or relative of yours killed whilst at the bank by a
member of the public attempting to foil a heist, are you au fait with that?
If you are, there's something wrong.

As regards to violent beating/stabbings in the UK - I've haven't seen any
information that would indicate that they are anymore likely/unlikely than
in the US. So you can speculate whether that is the case, but it's not the
issue at hand.

I have not, in my posts, stated that
the UK is some crime free haven, nor that the US is some 'Escape from
New York' style war-zone. Really, bad people exist in all societies,
just in some quite a few of them have guns.

You are incorrect to state that at-home burglaries are much higher in
the UK. 1,309 domestic burglaries occur per 100,000 population in the
US equating to a 1.3% chance of your VCR ending up in someone's swag
bag each year. Where as in England there is an average of 14.5
domestic burglaries per 1,000 households - being conservative and
assuming just two persons per household (the average is actually a
little over three) - that's 14.5 incidents per 2,000 population, i.e.
a 0.73% chance of being burgled.

Simply put, you are at least twice as likely to be burgled in the US
than UK, (although obviously it depends greatly upon the area in which
you live, since these burglaries will not be spread evenly throughout
either country's populace).

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html


That, if anything, proves my point over yours. From the very first line of
your reference:
'The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with
strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate.'

Although I appreciate that the website goes on to argue that gun control is
not the limiting factor - I disagree with those opinions presented - yet the
hard facts remain. Just look at that table.


http://www.cobras.org/usastats.htm
http://society.guardian.co.uk/social...1,761948,00.ht
ml



I see the reasoning behind a free choice to carry a gun in America,
and being a realist I would most likely keep a gun were I to live
there. I just think it a shame that so many are empowered with
deadly force that are so willing to use it.


Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal.

Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's
never a good thing to shoot anyone.

No,I am NOT joking.
Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape than
shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber?
Why do you wish to protect criminals?

I have no desire to harbour/protect criminals, especially of the variety you
describe. They, frankly, are ****s and deserve everything that is due them.
There are of course various tiers of criminal and I would argue that an
opportunist burglar in to swipe your VCR is not deserving of two in the
chest and one in the head. They aren't all baby-eating, gang rapists off on
a busman's holiday to your front room. You, as neither policeman nor judge,
are not in the position to legally deliver deadly force.

So, yes, kill the ******* but face the repercussions.



It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law
when they purchase their pistol, nor have they been deputised to shoot
perps by the local sheriff . As the judge, jury and literally the
executioner, you're doing as much a disservice to the public as the
chap you've just shot. The most basic appreciation of rudimentary
criminal justice yields at least that.

Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get shot in
the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every shot kills,so
shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and executioner".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

I am not the drama queen you seem to think I am. That phrase, cliché that it
is, is poignant nonetheless. I agree, criminals should bear the
responsibility of their actions over their victims. Yet regardless of
M-kills, K-kills, whichever, the concept of a citizen delivering deadly
force - successful or not - what would you call that person?



They either get caught
on the spot,or while seeking medical care for their wounds,or get
killed.And thus they commit no further crimes.A service to the
public.

But in a free society,it should be the individuals choice to use
firearms to defend themselves.

Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to
take the life of another? Even if that guy is caught red handed
rifling through your smalls, it's indefensible.

If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible
felony",yes
it is legal to use lethal force. And inside one's home,the "castle
doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good
purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them in
the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.)

If I believed my life, or more importantly that of my wife or child, to be
in danger and lethal force were the only option, then yes I would be fully
prepared for trial over the legality of the death. That's reasonable. What
isn't reasonable is to fire upon a man you find in your home who presently
doesn't represent a life or death situation. Hard to understand, I know, but
you as a citizen has a duty to all - fellow citizen and criminal alike - to
preserve life.


These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD
be.


Yes, I agree. As the onus should be on you to defend yourself at trial for
the death of whoever you shoot, let a jury decide your fate and the
legitimacy of your actions. There should be no 'Get out of jail free' card -
bedlam soon follows.

Jim Doyle



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"N329DF" wrote in message
...
Would you kill a man if he tried to steal your car? Do you value
your pick-up over a man's life? Even if he is a ****?


in a minute. If he is stealing my truck, that I use to make my living
with,
that might have the tools I use to make a living with, and is my only
means to
get to work, then he is no more to me than a vermin to be delt with. If
the the
criminals knew that the sentence for stealing a car was death or life in
prison, they might think otherwise. There is a reason they used to hang
horse
thieves. A horse was a familys mean of survival, to plow the fields, to go
into
town to get supplies, to hunt with. Today the car has replaced the horse.

When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the concept
that a life is worth less that a few material goods. Don't you have third
party insurance in the US? I don't mean to be rude, but drawing a comparison
to 18th century policy just makes you look even more out of the dark ages.
Someone tell me - this isn't the genuine feeling amongst all Americans?!

Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

B2431 wrote:
From: Kerryn Offord


SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).



Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do that
you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the intruder
intends harm he will follow you outside.

***
I was talking about the attitude that grabbing a gun is the first
thought, over and above the simple idea of 'getting out of there'.

Where 'getting out of there' means getting out of whatever room the
intruder is in (no need to leave the house, but you can.

Avoiding a confrontation is the safest thing for most people. Your
attitude seems to be.. "there is an intruder, let's go and kill the
SOB". Me, I like to think my first thought, assuming there is nobody
I'll be leaving in danger, is to get out of there and call the police.
Personally, even if I had a gun (well I do, but its safely secured),
will I be able to shoot someone? Rather than confront someone only to
find I can't react swiftly enough, I'll try and avoid confrontation.



Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone, take
the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and
convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you.

***
Having others in the house means you have already reached the limit of
retreat. You can't avoid a confrontation, so make your best move. Just
don't use a hand gun, and that shotgun had better have been secured
before you grabbed it. Think of how the jury would see it.. "I was
defending my children." is a hard one to beat... just try to do it
legally (no illegal weapons kept ready for self defence)... a cricket
bat is a great weapon (a recent case: A man heard his daughter scream.
He grabbed a cricket bat and slammed it into the person standing in the
dark over his daughter's bed.... He was defending his family.. the
police didn't even think of charging him.)


OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is capable
of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With what?
At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home. What
if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever reason?

***
First off.. you don't have to get outside, just out of the room the
intruder is in.. If he/she follows... well, you tried to avoid
confrontation....

But anyway... there are neighbours... they are usually willing to
answer the door when someone knocks on it (the won't even shoot you as
you walk up the front path)...

If the resident is unable to defend themselves for some reason, why
would they want to confront the intruder?

And, you want to attack someone using a kitchen knife? No thanks... to
much chance of getting hurt (I have a 'stick').

There is no reason you can't grab a weapon as you withdraw from
confrontation... just that it shouldn't be a hand gun (of course the
only handgun/intruder shooting resulted in the death of the intruder (he
was armed with a VHS cassette) and not much happened to the householder
(in spite of all the laws he broke using a handgun.) If someone
follows.. well, you tried to avoid confrontation...


Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than yours?
OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the
badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a
family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have seen
life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough? He's
in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the badguy
to make the dicision to harm you?

***
You are assuming that if there is an intruder it is a case of his life
or mine... that might be how it is in the USA, its not what its like in
NZ. There are very few intruder crimes in NZ (most burglaries are when
the house is unoccupied. Most intruders, as soon as they realize someone
is up and about will do a runner.

There is no need to let an intruder into your house. You can defend the
door. You can probably even get away with threatening to shoot someone
to keep them out. I'm assuming the person has gained entry to the
house... in that case, you want to think about getting out of there (if
discovery doesn't cause them to do a runner)...



You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably win. You
really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you can get him to stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

***
In NZ, if I shoot someone other than when they are running away, (or
even walking away).. i.e., they are potentially a threat, I can shoot
them and they cannot sue me.... as long as a jury considers it
reasonable force.


In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started his attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21 feet. You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision to shoot
has to be made in an instant.

***
Biggest "room" (open plan dining/lounge) is about 30' long, Everything
else will be less than 21'.

This assumes you have a firearm to hand. Do you always carry a loaded
firearm around your house? Me? I don't. If someone is in the house I'm
going to make a noise and if that doesn't scare them away, I'll find
something I can swing (stick, rolled up magazine or newspaper)...
meanwhile I'll be calling the Police. Personally I just wouldn't think
of using a gun.


In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as
shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake
guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.


***
The thing is, care to guess how many incidents there are in NZ where a
house holder accidentally shoots a member of their household? I think
the same number applies to UK, and probably even Australia.

As I said, its a matter of attitude. In NZ and probably UK and Oz.
Firearms are not the first response to an intruder.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Kerryn Offord

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP
Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).


Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do
that
you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the
intruder
intends harm he will follow you outside.

Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone,
take
the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and
convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you.

OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is
capable
of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With
what?
At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home.
What
if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever
reason?

Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than
yours?
OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the
badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a
family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have
seen
life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough?
He's
in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the
badguy
to make the dicision to harm you?


No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless. Genuinely.
Yet there is a distinction between him and some random hard-up opportunist
burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in the wrong - but not
deserving of a death sentence. The sole problem I have is with the very
blurred distinction between the two, and the trigger happy nature with which
a large number of Americans (taking Usenet posters as my only regular
contact with Americans) seem happy to deal with in these situations.

Again, I think this boils down largely to a difference between our two
countries. Although the UK has crime, just as any other country, I have
never heard in all my years of such an incident as you describe above.
Although sadly, there's always a possibility that this may happen, we do not
live in fear of such horrors. If you do in America, then I completely
understand your motives for owning a weapon for home defence. But do you
really live in fear of this?

Can I ask of the circumstances you found yourself in when you drew your
weapon?


You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably win. You
really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you can get him to
stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started his
attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21 feet.
You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision to
shoot
has to be made in an instant.

In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as
shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught
basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake
guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they
find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.

That's interesting and refreshing to see, genuinely. I have taken the
impression from the majority of post over the past couple of days that there
is a general blasé attitude toward firearms and killing in the US. I have
very limited knowledge of the NRA, but from what I can see they seem to
promote firearm awareness and safety - which can't be bad in anyone's book.
Are all firearms owners in the US members of the NRA?

Jim Doyle



Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Jim Doyle"


snip

I'm not desperately urging you guys to throw down your guns, shout
hallelujahs and join the British way of life. I'm just fascinated as to
why
you so readily defend your right to shoot someone where really no right
should exist.


Jim Doyle

I don't think anyone is advocating shooting anyone. I personally have
drawn my
weapon and it ended peacefully. No, I'm not law enforecment.

Having said that there is a real fear of injury or death at the hands of
criminals. I used to own a sporting goods store that sold guns. I lost a
few
sales suggesting little old ladies get medium size barking dogs instead of
guns. I specified 'barking' since the bad guy is more likely go away
without
entering when the dog lights up. If you have a nonbarking dog that bites
the
bad guy you leave yourself open for a lawsuit. Believe it or not in the
U.S. a
burglar can sue for injuries incurred in the commission of his crime.

I don't think a person should HAVE to fight with an intruder so I truly
believe
a law abiding citizen should be allowed to keep and carry loaded fire
arms.
Consideration must be given to the safety of children in the home.

Do you not fear that your children could be hurt by the very gun that is in
your hands to protect them?


To be fair most of the fears felt by citizens is unfounded and aggrivated
by
alarmist news media, but if a firearm in the house makes one feel safe why
should it be anyone else's business? Would you rather we were unarmed and
afraid?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Kerryn Offord" wrote in message
...


Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP
Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).

In the UK (also NZ) there is a long history of owning long arms (rifle,
shotgun), and basically they are 'easy' to buy.

In NZ you can use a firearm for self defence... but you must be 'in fear
of ....' for yourself or others. Using deadly force to protect property
is frowned upon. If you do shoot someone... if you shoot them in the
back, expect the police to take you to court. If the person is shot in
the front, depending on circumstances (anything short of fatal), the
police will not proceed. If the shooting is fatal a court (coroners)
must determine whether there is a case to answer. Historically, for a
shot in the front, while in fear of injury case, the court finds
self-defence.

The UK operates in a basically similar way.

While I can't say about NZ, the UK differs substantially from USian practice
in that people who defend themselves (in their own homes or elsewhere) are
subject to routine second guessing as to the use of "excessive force" by
prosecutors. It seems (from this side of the pond) that there's strong
feeling among the "governing classes" that self-defense is illegimate until
proven otherwise. This isn't a "guns" issue but a self-defense issue.

In most places in the US, once an assailant crosses the line and begins an
assault, a homeowner can escalate to any level of violence he feels is
necessary to stop the assault. Note "assault" and _not_"battery".

B2431 wrote:

In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as
shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake
guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.

In the US, gun deaths have been decreasing since about 1992.
There were a bit under 30,000 gun deaths in the US for 2000.

Of those, about 55% were suicides and 40% homicides. The
remainder were accidents of one form or another.

So accidental shooting (at least to death) isn't really your
most likely way to come to an end via gun violence.

Studies have overwhelmingly confirmed that people who take
gun safety courses *don't* have gun accidents. Furthermore,
children who have taken such courses largely don't end up
playing with guns and having accidents with them.


SMH

When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the concept
that a life is worth less that a few material goods. Don't you have third
party insurance in the US?

Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US. Getting
insurance to cover that is getting to the point it is not affordable. Alot of
people don't have insurance to cover the loss of a car or truck, and if they
lose it, it could be the difference between keeping a roof over thier head and
food on the table.
In my own family, my dad had a 74 F-100, he was getting ready to retire, and
knew that truck would be the last one he most likly ever to be able to get. He
put in a factory new motor, tranmission, every system gone thru to make it like
new. IT was stolen from his driveway less than a yr into his retirment. The
insurance would only pay for a truck that was a rust bucket and was not
reliable enough to go anywhere in. So not only did my dad loose his truck, he
lost his retirment plans, and insurance could not replace the truck with a as
good one.
I may sound callous bout taking a life in the defence of a car or truck, but
the vermin that stole my dads truck did alot more than just steal a truck, they
stole his future.
I don't hunt, because I don't like to kill a creature, be it a deer, rabit,
bird, snake, for sport, but I have no problem taking out a rat or other forms
of vermin, and thieves, either car or house, are a form of vermin.
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA